Generalization bounds for regularized portfolio selection with market side information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on statistical learning theory, we derive out-of-sample and optimality guarantees about the investment strategy obtained from a regularized portfolio optimization model which attempts to exploit side information about the financial market in order to reach an optimal risk-return tradeoff. This side information might include for instance recent stock returns, volatility indexes, financial news indicators, etc. In particular, we demonstrate that a regularized investment policy that linearly combines this side information in a way that is optimal from the perspective of a random sample set is guaranteed to perform also relatively well (i.e., within a perturbing factor of O(1/n)) with respect to the unknown distribution that generated this sample set. We also demonstrate that these performance guarantees are lost in a high-dimensional regime where the size of the side information vector is of an order that is comparable to the sample size. We further extend these results to the case where non-linear investment policies are considered using a kernel operator and show that with radial basis function kernels the performance guarantees become insensitive to how much side information is used. Finally, we illustrate our findings with a set of numerical experiments involving financial data for the NASDAQ composite index.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".